Congress to examine “the Internet” as a tool for homegrown terrorism

A bill recently passed in the House has some observers upset over its finding …

The House of Representatives last month passed a bill known as the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which asks the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism to develop tools to monitor and combat "homegrown terrorism" along with the promotion of ideologically-based violence within the US. In particular, the bill cites the Internet as a tool used to facilitate "violent radicalization." Despite some of the alarmist coverage of the bill, however, there is only one mention of the 'Net.

The bill was introduced earlier this year by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), and it passed by a 404 to 6 margin. It's off to the Senate now, where it may still stagnate and disappear. Given its heavy support in the House and focus on a hot-button issue, though, we can expect that members of the Senate will at least consider what is being proposed in the name of fighting terrorism.

Here's the section of the bill that has some observers up in arms:

The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

The section quoted above is, in fact, the only specific mention of the Internet in the bill. The remainder of the "findings" only vaguely address a need to understand, prevent, and combat homegrown terrorism in the US—all of which are noble goals—with the Internet being the only tool singled out.

The bill also calls on the DHS to establish a grant program to prevent radicalization, create university-based centers of excellence for the "Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism" in the US, and study the methodologies used by other countries to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

It's no secret that terrorists use the Internet to aid communications—it is, after all, extremely quick and mostly anonymous. Indeed, the head of US Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, warned us last year that terrorists can "train themselves over the Internet" without ever having to set foot in a training camp. The 'Net can be used to spread propaganda, engage in psychological warfare, recruit, network, and coordinate attacks. But so can plenty of other communications tools. Cracking down on 'Net propaganda can be difficult, too, because of the cross-border nature of the Internet, but that hasn't stopped the EU from trying to ban the distribution of bomb-making instructions online. Should this law pass, it is possible that such restrictions would be proposed for the US, but any proposals would still have to pass a Congressional vote and judicial review.

The bigger bone of contention is that the law will simply fund paranoia towards dissidents and could even set off another wave of McCarthy-style hysteria over "terrorists" in the US. Because the bill leaves all definitions up to the committee, critics like Philip Giraldi worry that it will be used to target just about everyone who dislikes some aspect of government policy. Writing for the left-leaning Huffington Post, Giraldi argues that the act "could easily be abused to define any group that is pressuring the political system as 'terrorist,' ranging from polygamists, to second amendment rights supporters, anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, and peace demonstrators. In reality, of course, it will be primarily directed against Muslims and Muslim organizations."

Similar claims are made in a lengthy piece at The Indypendent, and a follow-up piece on blogosphere reaction shows just how hyped-up the rhetoric here has become ("Stop S. 1959 or lose Internet free speech," one poster wrote). Such rhetoric seems more than a bit over the top, since the commission doesn't have the power to make laws or to rewrite the Constitution. Still, if the issue concerns you, now would be an excellent time to contact your senator.

Jacqui Cheng
Jacqui is an Editor at Large at Ars Technica, where she has spent the last eight years writing about Apple culture, gadgets, social networking, privacy, and more. Emailjacqui@arstechnica.com//Twitter@eJacqui